perjantai 31. heinäkuuta 2015

They were usually
commissioned, informal group portraits, fashionable in the 18th
century called Conversation Pieces, say the encyclopedias. A group in
the painting was engaged in genteel conversation, usually outdoors.
Later the English word ”conversation piece” came to refer to any
object that was seen as interesting enough to spark conversation.

What
an epic conversation piece the Guggenheim Helsinki has been! Since
January 2011, when the plan was published, it became a kind of
perpetual motion machine in Finnish media. The largest Finnish and
Northern European newspaper Helsingin Sanomat adopted it as a baby,
covering the subject widely. When
Helsingin
Sanomat reported
in
a pro-Guggenheimish way, a more neutral point of view was given by
the Finnish Broadcasting Company. While the two competing main steam
media covered the issue so widely, the rest of Finnish media got
frustrated and alienated themselves from this debate.

Accompanied by social
media it became perhaps the largest conversation piece that Finnish
culture journalism has produced ever. As the media coverage of
culture has become evermore frugal, some even asked, what was left in
the shadow of the Guggenheim issue?

Extraordinary ordinary
competition

One of its climaxes was
the international architecture competition announced in June 2014.
The competition reached 1 715 proposals from 77 countries during only
three months. Six designs, which were selected for the second stage
were presented in a thorough, illustrative, well-done architectural
exhibition in Helsinki Kunsthalle this spring.

The globally famous architects, starchitects like Frank Gehry,
designer of the famous Guggenheim Bilbao and others rumoured to
participate, shone in their non presence. Was this because of only
three months time given to first stage participation or uncertainty
about final construction of the museum?

The winner was Paris-based
Moreau Kusunoki Architects, who proposed an inviting composition of
nine pavilions to the Helsinki waterfront area. They are covered by
glass and black and silver coloured, charred wood. Domestic
conversation argued about the tower piece of the composition: was its
height against the competition rules or the city regulations or not?

One of the most
critical comments was by unnamed writer of The Economist (Lacking spark, June 27th 2015)
who described the pavilions as “an indistinct jumble”. The writer
went on with his blast: “The design considers no new way to look at
art that would make it a must-visit.”
The critic wrote on the competition as a whole: “It is
extraordinary that a design that triumphed over 1 700 competitors
should turn out to be rather ordinary.”

The competition did not move the main
parties that formed earlier around the Guggenheim Helsinki affair.
They can be divided into three groups, from which two are against and
one is for the project.

Categorical no-sayers

The hard-core Guggenheim
Helsinki opponents are both populists and traditional leftists. They
found each others in opposing any non-national cultural enterprise
(nationalist and populist) or feared that the franchise art museum
would lead to total macdonaldisation of Finland (conservative
leftists).

They oppose even a
possibility of artistic cultural collaboration with American
counterpart because they are... well American. Their lines of reason
are: many Guggenheim projects have failed elsewhere, Guggenheim is
not an avant-garde enough contemporary art institution and the lack
of money.

The well-known art critic
Mr. Otso Kantokorpi stated in Helsingin Sanomat that the competition
was trivial. He said that the funding is not right, and he did not
understand why the city or state could come along with this. The
other art institutions such as Kiasma cannot be run properly with
present finance.

Those who are struck by
the nationalist fervour think that internationalism is the peril of
our times in art, even though their car is perhaps made in Germany
and computer in China. Without a blink they allow billions in
enterprise subsidies, road construction and renovation of Helsinki
Olympic arena, but even after massive public debate the city does not
need more art, they think.

The leviathan media
attention paid to Guggenheim Helsinki gathered two major artistic
protest groups. Checkpoint Helsinki is a programmatic artists group
that produces contemporary art without a permanent exhibition space
into everyday environments. Among others the Next Helsinki
competition was an alternative to the “controversial Guggenheim
Helsinki” to launch visionary alternative ideas to the allotted
South Harbour site. Over 200 entries were submitted from 37
countries.

The “not on my purse”
party

The saying “Guggenheim
yes, but not on my purse” was a standard of the citizens and
politicians who did not want to sound evermore prevailing Finnish
peasants, populists or antiamerican. It became a convenient way to
say a polite no and forget it, because of the lack of political will
and opportunistic compromise with it.

Little do these people
know of the Finnish museum law that allows state subsidies to any
institution that fulfils the standards, be it private or public. And
why would Guggenheim Helsinki not take that money? And what would be
the role of Helsinki city donating the infrastructure?

It has become an epitome
of the current "homo culturalis" to distrust the state and public
sector in establishing, financing and up-keeping cultural services
and institutions. Consistently we live in illusion of waiting for the
rich, foundations and companies to come fore and donate money for
culture and arts. But why does this magic “private money” sound
so genteel and who pays for it at the end of the day?

The donors, the dark
horses of the Guggenheim Helsinki did not come out from the closet,
understandably. Only roughly one third of the task of 30 million US
Dollar contribution money was reported to have been achieved. Who
wants to announce their generosity into a project that is uncertain
to be realized?

The advocates

The advocates of
Guggenheim Helsinki saw it more a matter, spectacle, trade and
business than spirit, art, culture and civilization. Undoubtedly,
these Helsinkians were unselfish and sincere in their urge to improve
their city, call it a cultural branding or what, to be a better place
to live.

What went wrong was their
strategy. Instead of a tourist trap and money boost, ”sampo” (the
word from Finnish national epic Kalevala meaning something that
churns money) they should have started from the content and museum
concept. What would Guggenheim be able to offer as a cultural and art
contender?

The advocates said they
were open, but in several places it was not so. The architecture
competition tradition in Finland is more open than it appeared, which
the organizer, Guggenheim Foundation did not bother to find out. The
Finnish advocates never reported about their negotiations with the
Americans, which gave the observers impression that the Finns were
kowtowing.

The Guggenheim project in
Abu Dhabi was reported in Finland with its inhuman, almost slave-like
immigrant workers conditions. Louvre and New York University had
their projects in Abu Dhabi as well, but the Guggenheim was singled
out as the target for negative attention. The proclamations of the
Guggenheim to try to settle the situation did not sound convincing.

The end conversation?

Helsinki city has hired a
third party reviewer to estimate the real costs of the project. The
project waits for a hearing in the city council, where it has in fact
never been. It has not won enough political muscle. Big state funding
is hardly possible in an economic situation, where the Finnish
government’s new austerity program will see a 600 million Euro cut
from the education budget.

Was the last week of June
the beginning of the end of Guggenheim Helsinki? Those who are not
dead tired to hear from it, they will see perhaps one more piece of
conversation.